Latin syllable structure in typological perspective Christian Lehmann University of Erfurt Abstract Three parameters are considered in the typology of Latin syllable structure: 1) phonotaxis of syllable structure, 2) correspondence of syllable structure with morpheme structure, 3) syllable structure processes. With respect to these parameters, Latin may be characterized as follows: 1. Latin allows moderate complexity of the onset, which, during its history, gets further reduced. Similarly, complexity of the nucleus is mostly reduced to a single short vowel. Latin allows relatively complex rhymes, which, however, get reduced in the language history. 2. Latin (as well as Romance languages) goes relatively far in blurring mor- phological boundaries, even left stem boundaries and, thus, word bounda- ries, by ‘liaison’. 3. Latin phonology is relatively faithful to lexical representations. However, syllable structure is simplified, at the expense of the phonological manifes- tation of grammatical boundaries. Christian Lehmann, Latin syllable structure in typological perspective 2 1. Introduction The purpose of this contribution is to characterize the Latin syllable on the background of a general theory of syllable structure and of typological variation encountered in this area. The theory has to take into account the phonetic basis of the syllable, the principles of its structure at the phonological level, the nature of syllabication and phonological processes that change syllabic structure. Major emphasis is given to the ways in which structural complexity of the syllable is gradually built up in languages by the introduction of lower-level constituent structure. Latin will be characterized with respect to various parameters of structural complexity. Further- more, attention is paid to Latin syllabication and to the extent to which it respects or blurs grammatical boundaries. The role of syllable weight for Latin prosody is considered. Finally, the impact of phonology on the surface representation of lexical structure is briefly assessed. 2. The position of the syllable in phonological theory The syllable has its place in a complexity hierarchy of phonological units which is shown in T1: T1. Levels of phonological complexity cursus phonological word1 foot syllable mora segment feature2 Just as the corresponding hierarchy in grammar (sentence, clause, syntagm, word-form, stem, morpheme), the principle underlying the hierarchy and its extreme levels – cursus and seg- ment/feature – are universal. Intermediate levels, however, may not play a role in some lan- guages. Latin phonology, for instance, makes no reference to the foot. For present purposes, it suffices to know that the syllable is the minimum free phonological unit and the locus of su- prasegmental features such as stress and tone. The cursus3 is a string that contains no pause but is limited by pauses. The mora will be defined in section 6. A unit of a complexity hierarchy may be a primitive (constitutive) or a derived concept. In the former case, it is conceived as part of a unit of the immediately higher level. In the lat- ter case, it is defined analytically as a certain configuration of units of the immediately lower level. In this sense, the syllable – just like some of the other units in T1 – may be a primitive or a derived unit in the phonology of a language. 1 = prosodic word 2 The feature has been set apart from the rest of the hierarchy because unlike the other units, it com- bines on the vertical dimension to form the next more complex unit. 3 = phonological phrase or breath group; term introduced in Pulgram 1970. Christian Lehmann, Latin syllable structure in typological perspective 3 3. The structure of the syllable 3.1. Sonority From the phonetic point of view, the spoken chain consists in waves of sonority (or of sound intensity). Points of high sonority alternate with points of low sonority. In this perspective, a syllable is a section between two successive points of low sonority, as illustrated in S1. S1. Syllable as sonority wave Sonority is an intrinsic property of certain segment classes. “The sonority of a sound is its loudness relative to that of other sounds with the same length, stress, and pitch” (Ladefoged 1975:219), that is to say, its intrinsic acoustic energy potential. A segment’s sonority essen- tially corresponds to its degree of constriction (or, conversely, opening), as shown in S2.4 S2 is a simplified one-dimensional version of a sonority hierarchy defined in terms of distinctive feature oppositions (see Blevins 1995:211). S2. Scale of phonetic sonority sonority category constriction maximum open vowel minimum mid vowel closed vowel approximant, liquid nasal fricative minimum stop maximum Segments of high sonority constitute the syllable peak, while segments of low sonority consti- tute syllable margins. More precisely, it is the syllable onset that typically has low sonority. The sonority peak by default coincides with the end of the syllable; the gradual fall of sonor- ity towards the end is optional. 4 Cf. Ladefoged 1975:220, Durand 1990:210 and Angoujard 1997, ch. 2.1. Christian Lehmann, Latin syllable structure in typological perspective 4 Like most concepts of the phonological level, the syllable has a universal phonetic basis (cf. Pulgram 1970,. ch.1), which consists in the undulation of sonority of S1. However, this phonetic gestalt does not directly provide the definition of the syllable or of syllabication in a given language. Instead, this is done at the phonological level, i.e. at the level of the language system (cf. Zirin 1970, ch. I). Here, segments are categorized in different sonority classes. This means that the language will subdivide the continuum of S2 in a more or less arbitrary fashion. Latin makes use of the sonority categories shown in S3. S3. Sonority categories in Latin sonority categories segment catego- principal subcategory ries 3 3 open vowel 2 mid vowel 1 closed vowel 2 approximant, liquid 1,5 nasal 1 3 sibilant 2 other fricative 1 stop 3.2. Constituent structure of the syllable It follows from what has been said before that the sonority scale of S2 manifests itself on the syntagmatic dimension. The phonotactic structure of the syllable may be described by a con- stituent structure model.5 While the principle underlying the model is universal, its details are language-specific. S4 shows the Latin version of it. ‘σ’ means ‘syllable proper’. Constituents are illustrated by the monosyllaba strix ‘crow’ and stirps ‘root’. S4. Constituency of the syllable constituent syllable pre- σ postcoda initial onset rhyme initial postinitial peak coda son. category 1.3 1 2 3 2 1 1.3 examples s t r i k s s t i r p s The correspondence between syllable constituency as in S4 and the sonority scale of S2 re- quires that the sonority of the segments that occupy these syntagmatic positions increases 5 Cf. Vincent 1986, Durand 1990, ch. 6.1, Blevins 1995:212f and Cser 2001. Christian Lehmann, Latin syllable structure in typological perspective 5 from the initial up to the peak and that it decreases again from the peak down to the coda. There are, however, syllables – including just those illustrating S4 – whose first segment is higher in sonority than the second, or whose last segment is higher in sonority than the pre- ceding one. Latin is like many other languages here in that the only consonant that may do this is a sibilant, notably /s/. This remains intractable if one views the syllable in isolation, but it becomes intelligible when we turn to syllabication of strings (section 5). In the conception of the syllable as a phonological unit, the peak has absolute priority over the boundary. What makes a syllable is its peak, not its boundaries. In a given cursus, the number of syllables and the location of their peaks are practically always uncontroversial, while it may be hard to pin down the boundaries. In fact, in several respects, the constituent structure model is only a crutch for the proper understanding of syllable structure. We have to face phenomena of ambiguous and of double constituency. Let us briefly look at two sorts of such phenomena. Returning first to the problems of syllable boundaries, these essentially stem from two sources. First, the pre-initial and the postcoda are labile and functionally ambiguous; i.e. a segment in a given chain may be one or the other. Second, a syllable boundary may fall in the middle of a segment (which is then ambisyllabic). This concerns, above all, geminate conso- nants; but similar arguments have been advanced for other sorts of consonants. To approach a solution of this problem, the concept of an interlude6 may be useful, which is a part of the phonological string that bridges two adjacent syllables, comprises at least the pre-initial and the postcoda and may be a constituent – if constituent structure we require – of either or both or neither of the neighboring syllables. The idea is illustrated by Latin extra ‘outside’ in S5, which deliberately leaves some aspects in the dark. S5. The interlude syllable syllable … postcoda pre-initial … interlude e k s t r a The second kind of problems associated with syllable constituency concerns the internal structure of the rhyme and stems from the fact that the structure of the syllable is both sym- metric and asymmetric. The basic symmetry lies in the wave form of S1 and is resumed in S4 in the sequence of the sonority values corresponding to syllable constituents. The basic asymmetry stems from the nature of the two halves of the syllable: the rhyme, based on a vowel, can represent the syllable; the onset, based on a consonant, cannot. In consequence of this ambivalence, alternative constituencies have been proposed for the syllable. One of them makes use of the notion of the nucleus as part of a ternary structure.